Thrombotic risk and features of patients with inferior vena cava agenesis: a multicentre, retrospective, observational study
Carlos Bravo-Pérez,Ana Blanco,Nuria Revilla,Jorge Cobos,Alba Salgado-Parente,Susana Asenjo,Ramiro Méndez,Luis Marti-Bonmati,Santiago Bonanad,José C Albillos,Nerea Castro,Shally Marcellini,Paul López Sala,Maialen Lasa,José M Bastida,María S Infante,Miguel A Corral,Javier Pagan,Pilar Llamas,Juan J Rodríguez-Sevilla,Agustín Rodríguez-Alen,Teresa S Sevivas,Daniela Morello,Cristina García Villar,Sara Lojo,Ana Marco,Paolo Simioni,Vicente Vicente,María L Lozano,María E de la Morena-Barrio,José M García-Santos,Javier Corral,IVC Agenesis Study Group,Carlos Bravo-Perez
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-3026(24)00138-8
Abstract:Background: Inferior vena cava agenesis (IVCA) is a rare anomaly predisposing affected people to lower-limb venous thrombosis with low frequency of pulmonary embolism. Antenatal thrombosis and inherited thrombophilia have been suggested as causes of IVCA. However, there is little evidence on the clinical course and management of this condition. We designed a patient registry to assess the thrombotic risk and features of IVCA. Methods: In this this multicentre, retrospective, observational study, we included patients with IVCA diagnosed by routine imaging from 20 hospitals in Spain (n=18), Portugal (n=1), and Italy (n=1). Patients were identified from a systematic search in radiology databases using data extraction software (cohort A) and alternative searches in medical records for confirmed IVCA (cohort B; option allowed when systematic approaches were unapplicable). Primary outcomes were clinical and imaging features, thrombotic risk, phenotype of IVCA-associated thrombosis, anticoagulant treatment, and the results of thrombophilia testing. Findings: We included patients with IVCA diagnosed by routine imaging studies done between Jan 1, 2010, and Dec 31, 2022. In the systematic search, 4 341 333 imaging exams were screened from the radiology databases of eight centres. 122 eligible patients were enrolled in cohort A. A further 95 patients were identified by screening medical records at 12 centres, of whom 88 were eligible and included in cohort B, making a combined cohort of 210 patients. 96 (46%) of 210 patients were female and 200 (95%) were European or Hispanic. 60 (29%) of 210 patients had hepatic IVC interruption, whereas 150 (71%) had extrahepatic IVCA. In cohort A, 65 (53%) of 122 patients had venous thrombosis, with an estimated annual risk of 1·15% (95% CI 0·89-1·46). Extrahepatic IVCA was associated with a greater risk of venous thrombosis than hepatic IVCA (56 [67%] of 84 patients vs nine [24%] of 38 patients, odds ratio 5·31, 95% CI 2·27-12·43; p<0·0001). Analysis of 126 patients with venous thrombosis pooled from cohorts A and B showed early-onset (median age 34·6 years, IQR 23·3-54·3) and recurrent events (50 [40%] of 126 patients). Patients with extrahepatic IVCA had greater proportions of lower-limb venous thrombosis (95 [87%] of 109 vs nine [53%] of 17, p=0·0010) and recurrence (48 [44%] of 109 vs two [12%] of 17, p=0·015), but lower rates of pulmonary embolism (10 [10%] of 99 vs four [33%] of 12, p=0·044) than did patients with hepatic IVCA. 77 (63%) of 122 patients with thrombosis underwent indefinite anticoagulation. 32 (29%) of 111 patients (29 [34%] of 86 with thrombosis) had coexisting thrombophilias. The recurrence risk was lower for patients receiving indefinite anticoagulation (adjusted odds ratio 0·24, 95% CI 0·08-0·61; p=0·010), and greater for thrombophilias (3·19, 1·09-9·32; p=0·034). Interpretation: This evaluation of a large patient cohort demonstrates the high thrombotic burden of IVCA. We have identified two distinct forms of IVCA, hepatic and extrahepatic, suggesting different underlying mechanisms. Beyond clinical characterisation, we draw attention to this orphan disease and highlight the need for its study and improved care. Funding: Spanish Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, FEDER, Fundación Séneca.